On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 18:56:29 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:


"Robin9" wrote in message
...

We have some Cambridge residents here plus numerous
railway enthusiasts. As part of a speech about returning
responsibility for track maintenance and improvement to
train operators . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zmf6q3d

. . . a suggestion was made that the line between Bedford
and Cambridge might also be rebuilt. I've been told that part
of the right-of-way was lost decades ago when new buildings
were constructed across the trackbed.

Is this feasible? Does the Minister know something nobody
else knows?

It's government kit flying

This line has as much chance of being privately funded as the A14
improvements did.

Not necessarily. It could go ahead if the government guarantees the
revenues, which is effectively what happens with PFI deals.

On 07/12/2016 09:29, wrote:

The old station wasn't exactly in the town centre.

Are we talking about Cambridge again?

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 18:56:29 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:


"Robin9" wrote in message
...

We have some Cambridge residents here plus numerous
railway enthusiasts. As part of a speech about returning
responsibility for track maintenance and improvement to
train operators . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zmf6q3d

. . . a suggestion was made that the line between Bedford
and Cambridge might also be rebuilt. I've been told that part
of the right-of-way was lost decades ago when new buildings
were constructed across the trackbed.

Is this feasible? Does the Minister know something nobody
else knows?

It's government kit flying

This line has as much chance of being privately funded as the A14
improvements did.

Not necessarily. It could go ahead if the government guarantees the
revenues, which is effectively what happens with PFI deals.

well reading a few more newspaper reports, it does seem that the plan isn't
necessarily for it to be *funded* by the private sector (as some of the
initial headlines proclaimed), but merely for the private sector to be in
control of the build and operation.

But I still suspect that if it turns out to need 100% funding from HMG, it
wont go ahead.

I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern section.

tim

In message , at 15:20:20 on Thu, 8 Dec 2016,
tim... remarked:
It's government kit flying

This line has as much chance of being privately funded as the A14
improvements did.

Not necessarily. It could go ahead if the government guarantees the
revenues, which is effectively what happens with PFI deals.

well reading a few more newspaper reports, it does seem that the plan
isn't necessarily for it to be *funded* by the private sector (as some
of the initial headlines proclaimed), but merely for the private sector
to be in control of the build and operation.

But I still suspect that if it turns out to need 100% funding from HMG,
it wont go ahead.

I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern section.

Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:20:20 on Thu, 8 Dec 2016,
tim... remarked:
It's government kit flying

This line has as much chance of being privately funded as the A14
improvements did.

Not necessarily. It could go ahead if the government guarantees the
revenues, which is effectively what happens with PFI deals.

well reading a few more newspaper reports, it does seem that the plan
isn't necessarily for it to be *funded* by the private sector (as some of
the initial headlines proclaimed), but merely for the private sector to be
in control of the build and operation.

But I still suspect that if it turns out to need 100% funding from HMG, it
wont go ahead.

I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern section.

Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to Norwich)
already exists.

From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at all,
that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and as
there are already established customers for the local stations west of
Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.

There is limited demand from Cambridge, or even Norwich to Oxford, and if
you want to use it as part of a longer journey to the SW then via London is
almost certainly going to be better for you. (and the via somewhere else
applies equally for freight.)

As to local journeys, well how big a source is Sandy going to be? And if
that's at the expense of making the mainline station less convenient for
London commuters (as appears to be suggested), that idea isn't going to go
down too well with them is it?

And then there's the idea that it opens up parts of the countryside for "new
build estates". Well, we don't make decisions on where to put these
developments in the rest of the county based upon access to a rail line,
even where it already exists. You will recall that I have been following
the plans in my locality for new build developments and absolutely none of
them (about 8 @ 5,000+ houses) has been proposed aside by an existing
railway, even when simply moving it to a field a mile or 2 east or west
would provide that possibility. Never is the opportunity of an overspill
town for commuting to London been seen as a rational for creating this
development, they are always based upon each development being locally
sustainable with 100% of the new occupants working locally using, if they
have to use PT, local buses into the adjacent town centre.

Now you may think that as a planning policy, that is wrong, and I wouldn't
disagree at all with you if you did. But if we are going to have a planning
policy for new build developments based upon commuting into London, then we
need to start that by trialing it on an existing line, not use it as a
reason for a new build one. So I don't buy this as a reason for the line
being "useful" at all.

tim



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In message , at 12:27:35 on Sun, 11 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern section.

Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.

From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and
as there are already established customers for the local stations west
of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.

East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.

I share your doubts about building the new Sandy-Shepreth line and would
probably have chosen a Hitchin north chord instead.
--
Roland Perry

On 2016\12\12 08:51, Roland Perry wrote:

I share your doubts about building the new Sandy-Shepreth line and would
probably have chosen a Hitchin north chord instead.

With no ECML interchange? IME the interchanges with other lines have to
be at major stations where most trains already stop, or the interchange
possibilities will never work out that well.

In message , at 10:16:04 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, Basil Jet remarked:
I share your doubts about building the new Sandy-Shepreth line and would
probably have chosen a Hitchin north chord instead.

With no ECML interchange?

That would be at a new Sandy station on the same site as the proposed
one. Just the exit for E/W trains would be south on the ECML rather than
across-country via Bassingbourne.

IME the interchanges with other lines have to be at major stations
where most trains already stop, or the interchange possibilities will
never work out that well.

We appear to be living in a post-StAlbanisation world. Where new
stations mean more stops. See Edinburgh Gateway and Cambridge North.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:27:35 on Sun, 11 Dec 2016,
tim... remarked:
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern section.

Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.

From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at all,
that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and as
there are already established customers for the local stations west of
Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.

East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.

but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed, and
therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections (if there
are any)

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.